Karnataka High Court
N Raghavendra Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G. Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF September 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.48682-48686 & 49157 OF 2012 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. N.Raghavendra Murthy,
S/o late Narappa, aged 59 years,
No.L 214-215, 807, HUDCO,
2nd Stage, Kuvempurnagar,
Mysore.
2. Ateeq Ahmed,
S/o late Abdul Rawoof, aged 43 years,
No.33, A.R.Farm, Rayakere,
Chowdalli Village, Mysore-08.
3. Smt.Saleha Begum,
W/o late Abdul Subhan,
aged 65 years, Cowdalli Village,
Mysore.
4. M.Y.Jithendrappa S/o Veerappa,
aged 88 years, No.30, 8th Main,
7th Cross, Saraswathipuram,
Mysore-23, rep.by his GPA
Mr.Veerbhadra Y,
S/o M.Y.Jithendrappa.
5. M.D.Ranga,
S/o late Devappa Nayak, aged 49 years,
No.59, VRC Yadagiri,
Mysore.
2
6. G.B.Manjunath S/o G.B.Manjunath,
Aged 49 years, No.203, 3rd Floor,
Priyadarshini Apartment,
Nazaeabad, Mysore. .. Petitioners
( By Sri P.N.Hegde, Advocate )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Bangalore,
Rep.by its Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mysore District, Mysore.
3. Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk,
Mysore.
4. K.S.Iswarappa,
Deputy Chief Minister,
Minister for Revenue,
Government of Karnataka,
Bangalore. .. Respondents
(R-4 deleted v.c.o. Dt: 11.12.2012)
( By Sri Gopal Bilalmane, HCGP and
Sri Sriranga, Advocate for R-2 & 3
and Just Law for R-1)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated 24.11.2012 passed by the R1 vide Annexure-A in so far as
the petitioners are concerned.
These Writ Petitions coming on for further hearing this day,
the Court made the following :
3
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the 1 st respondent vide Annexure-`A' in so far as it relates to them and for such other orders.
2. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of certain extent of land in Survey No.39 of Chowdalli Village, Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli village and Survey No.41 of Alanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. It is stated that, as per the Agreement dated 23.1.1950, the Governor General of India and His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, the properties of Maharaja were declared as private properties and the details of the private properties i.e., Survey No.41 of Alanahalli village, Survey No.39 of Chowdahalli village and Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, were published in the Official Gazette. According to the petitioners, the existence of aforesaid properties in the Survey Settlement Records has been described as `B' kharab lands. On 25.4.2011, 4 the Government addressed a letter to the District Administration to take necessary steps to change the revenue records. In pursuance to the same, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner initiated the proceedings as per Section 67(1) & (2) read with Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short). Accordingly, proceedings have been initiated under the Act before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, 2nd respondent having considered the claim of the interested parties, including Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), by its order dated 20th June 2012, came to the conclusion that the subject matter of the properties were the personal properties of the family members of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, and as such, there was no necessity to continue the proceedings under Section 67(2) of the Act and consequently, ordered for the deletion of word `B' kharab from column No.11 of RTC. According to the petitioners, at the intervention of some political persons, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 18.8.2012 recalling the earlier order dated 20th June 2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have filed Writ 5 Petition Nos.36020/2012 and 37992-97/2012. This Court by order dated 22.11.2012, set aside the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to hold fresh enquiry. According to the petitioners, the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department having participated in the proceedings, being fully aware of the entire development, including the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.36020/2012 and 37992-97/2012, yielding to the pressure of 4th respondent, and with an intention to circumvent, passed the impugned order by exercising power under Section 25 of the Act. It is further submitted that as per Section 25 of the Act, the same can be invoked by the Revenue Officer or the Revenue Court to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between two independent parties and the Government has no power to invoke the inherent power of the Revenue Court. Further, the order under challenge has been issued in the name of the Governor in terms of the Business Transaction Rules. As per the Rules, all the orders of the government shall be issued in the name of the Governor. Hence, the order under challenge is 6 the order of the government, but not the Revenue Court and the impugned order is non est in law. Hence, the present petitions are filed.
3. In the statement of objections filed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the petitioners herein have no locus standi to maintain the petitions. They claim that certain rights have accrued to them by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.6.2012, in which proceedings, these petitioners were not parties. Further, it is stated that the rights accrued, if any, to the petitioners are not illustrated. Even assuming that the petitioners have any semblance of right in respect of the subject matter herein, the present petitions have to be rejected on the ground that the order has not been executed by the petitioners. Therefore, the question of exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court does not arise. It is further stated that petitioners are claiming to be the purchasers of lands in Survey No.39 of Chowdahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore, and also in respect of two other villages from His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, and according to the petitioners, there was an agreement dated 7 23.1.1950 between His Excellency Governor General of India and His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, by which certain properties of the Maharaja were retained as his private properties and land in Survey No.39 of Chowdahalli village, Mysore Taluk, is the private property of Maharaja of Mysore. As per the survey and settlement conducted in the years 1922-26, as per the akarband, the land in question is described as `B' kharab land. The same is reflected in Column No.3 of RTC. Even in Column No.11, it is shown as `B' kharab. It is further stated that these lands have not been assessed for land revenue. As there are alienations which had taken place, there were issues with regard to change of katha and removal of word `B' kharab since the year year 2002-03 and the issue has been examined and ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Mysore District, initiated proceedings under Section 67 r/w. Section 136 (3) of the Act. It is further stated that petitioners herein are not parties to the aforementioned proceedings. The proceedings culminated in the order dated 20.6.2012, by which the 2nd respondent has concluded that the proceedings under section 67 of the Act in respect of the lands in question need not be pursued and 8 endorsement as `B' kharab in Column No.11 of the RTC has to be cancelled. A direction was issued to the Commissioner, Survey & Land Records, to undertake survey and to issue katha in terms thereof and other directions are also issued. In respect of the land outside the city the Tahsildar was directed to look into the records produced before him with regard to katha transfers. It is further submitted that the order dated 20.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent was being misrepresented and misused by various entities and individuals. Based on the said order, change in the nature of land in column No.3 of the RTC was being sought, which is impermissible and these aspects were brought to the notice of the parties by the revenue officers.
4. Further it is stated that, looking to the fact that there are many government institutions and organisations existing on the lands which are the subject matter of the present dispute and as there were multiple claims being made with regard to some of these lands as being private properties and also several misleading reports in news papers with regard to the order dated 20th June 2012, the 1st respondent having regard to the 9 magnitude of the problem, had directed the 2 nd respondent to consider the issue in pursuance of its inherent power under Section 25 of the Act. Further the 3 rd respondent addressed a letter seeking for clarification with regard to various problems encountered in implementation of the order dated 20 th June 2012. It is submitted, on consideration of the order dated 20 th June 2012, the respondent passed an order dated 18.8.2012, setting aside the order of 20th June 2012, listing out the various anomalies existing in it and consequential abuse of the order.
5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2012, some persons by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, challenged the said order in Writ Petition Nos.36020/2012 and 37992-97/2012 even though the said order dated 18.8.2012 is an appelable order under Section 49 of the Act. It is further submitted the learned Single Judge without adverting to the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 22.11.2012, quashing the order dated 18.11.2012 on the ground that petitioners therein and all other persons interested in the land were not given notice while passing the order dated 10 22.11.2012 and reserving liberty to the 2 nd respondent herein to hold fresh enquiry in the matter of issuing notice and thereafter to take decision. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the said order of the learned Single Judge is pending consideration in writ appeal before this Court in W.A.No.820/2013. It is submitted that State Government has the supervisory authority as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and to sub-serve the public interest, in exercise of powers under Section 25 r/w. Section 3 of the Act, passed the order dated 24.11.2012, keeping the order dated 20.6.2012 in abeyance. The petitioners herein allegedly aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2012, filed the present petitions, for which it is stated by the respondents that entire writ petition is misconceived and are liable to be rejected as the petitioners are alien to the original proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. In answer to the contentions taken on behalf of the respondents in the statement of objections, rejoinder is filed by the petitioners herein by contending that Section 25 of the Act 11 confers inherent power to the Revenue Courts to decide the matter and therefore, the Revenue Court can alone exercise its power to enquire and decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any persons and Section 3 of the Act is only referable to revenue administration, but not quasi judicial authority. It is further stated that so far as Writ Appeal is concerned, the said appeal is filed against the order of this Court in earlier proceedings and the same has nothing to do with the cause of action that has arisen in the present writ petitions.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order dated 24.11.2012 at Annexure-`A' passed by the 1st respondent is in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act and not acting as a Revenue Court and as the same is non est in law, it cannot survive. It is also submitted that the order dated 18th August 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as against the earlier order dated 20th June 2012, was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.37992-97/2012 12 and within two days of the order passed by this Court, the impugned order came to be passed which is non est and without authority of law.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in so far as exercising power under Section 3 r/w Section 25 of the Act is concerned, a revenue order is passed only to keep the first order in abeyance as it was going against the public interest. Of course, the second order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed by this Court, that is also challenged in Writ Appeal. It is further submitted that keeping in view the fact that the first order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 20 th June 2012 will be misused, the impugned order came to be passed in the interest of public which is good in the eye of law and same cannot be termed as non est order.
10. Having read the provisions under Section 3 read with Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, what is being noticed is that there was an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is at Annexure-`D', ordering to delete the words `B' kharab and 13 thereby allowing the applications filed by some of the applicants, which is a non est order. Rightly, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent has contended that to protect the property of the Government, by exercising power under Section 3 of the Act, the 1st respondent passed such an order to keep the first order of the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-`D' in abeyance and the same cannot be faulted.
11. So far as locus standi of these petitioners is concerned, they are neither parties before the Deputy Commissioner nor before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.36020/2012 and 37992- 97/2012. Looking into the cause title, petitioners might have thought that they have some semblance of right to question the impugned order. Further, the order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2012 in Writ Petition Nos. 36020/2012 and 37992-97/2012 is under challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.820/2013. Of course, the order dated 20 th June 2012 is kept in abeyance by the State because there is an apprehension that the same can be misused by some of the persons by getting their names entered in the revenue records 14 by creating semblance of right. By exercising the power under Section 3 read with section 24 & 25 of the Act, the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department being a higher authority and also by exercising administrative functions and to protect the interest of the State, has passed the impugned order which is correct in the eye of law. Since already matter is pending before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.820/2013 with respect to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, that will be taken care by the Division Bench at an appropriate stage. In the interregnum, any order passed by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, which is in the interest of public at large, to save the situation and to protect the property of the Government, does not call for interference by this Court.
12. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Malaprabha Co-operative Society -vs- State of Karnataka ( ILR 1990 KAR 1730) to contend that the Principal Secretary has no power to set aside or modify the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by acting as a Revenue Court under 15 Section 25 of the Act. This Court in the aforecited case has held that, as per Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, inherent power is conferred on the Revenue Court and not on the Revenue Officer. Section 24 provides that where a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar enquires into a dispute or adjudicates any right between the State Government and parties, he becomes a Revenue Court; while so functioning as a Revenue Court, he can exercise inherent powers as contemplated in Section 25 of the Act. If no proceedings are pending under Section 24 of the Act before Revenue Officer, he does not become the Revenue Court to exercise inherent power under Section 25. Section 25 of the Act is similar to Section 151 of CPC which is available to the Courts. Every Revenue Officer per se is not entitled to exercise the power under Section 25 unless he functions as a Revenue Court in respect of the proceedings. Section 25 is not an independent existence available to Revenue Officer to invoke it as and when he likes.
13. But, in the present case, the power exercised by the Principal Secretary is not only under Section 25 of the Act, but 16 under Section 3 of the Act. In order to save the situation such an order is passed to keep the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20th June 2012 in abeyance and hence, the same cannot be found fault with. Moreover, such power is vested under Section 3 of the Act to review the order by the higher officers by exercising power under Section 49 of the Act. Though there is no specific mention in the provision to exercise such a power, but the higher authority suo motto can pass orders in the interest of public and to save the situation as such, the same cannot be called in question. Moreover, as the petitioners are not parties to the first order of the Deputy Commissioner, much less in Writ Petition Nos.37992-97/2012, they cannot have any grievance with regard to impugned order.
In that view of the matter, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable and accordingly are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/